W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > May 2008

Re: ISSUE-103: substantive issue that requires opinion + discussion

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 10:27:49 -0500
Message-ID: <483C2875.50101@aptest.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Ivan Herman wrote:
> Shane McCarron wrote:
>> Actually, I think it is a huge deal and buys us nothing.  The CURIE 
>> spec is in last call, and we cannot diverge from that.  We have no 
>> such comment against the CURIE spec.  If we did, I am confident we 
>> would reject it because, as we all agree, a CURIE is not a new URI 
>> mechanism.  CURIEs are never used over the wire, so they do not need 
>> to have their own scheme.  As to future-proofing.... it is already 
>> future proof.  The only situation where a bracket will ever be a 
>> legal character in a URI is in the hostname portion (for IPv6 
>> addresses).  And a hostname cannot 
> Really? Just out of a technical curiosity: how would that look in 
> IPv6? I did not know that...
http://[2002:ac20:ad::ac20:ad]/whatever for my laptop, for example...
http://[::1]/whatever for loopback interface
> But, regardless, you answered my only pending question in my original 
> response, so I would agree we should not make this change and give a 
> proper answer to Jonathan.

> Ivan
>> be there without a scheme... so there cannot ever be a conflict.  I 
>> do not think this is anything we need to worry about.  We have bigger 
>> fish to fry.

Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2008 15:28:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:28 UTC